95 replies to this topic

[Minstrel]

This link should help: The Edited Conan Stories

It goes into considerable detail.

Thanks a million for this link, I'm so glad I found this site!

[deuce]

Actually, that other thread is more about the differences betwixt the Lancers and DeL Reys. This thread right here is the one that REALLY looks at what was done to REH's Conan yarns by LSdC (and Carter, to a lesser extent).

[Cimmerian]

Thanks for sharing the experience thedave. The fact that you were able to talk to DeCamp for so long is very insightful. I must admit my view of DeCamp has changed since I joined this site, as I have tempered my opinion with the understanding that DeCamp really advanced Conan and Howard to the masses and I am personally grateful for that dedication

Amen! We owe the man a lot.

Let me add, to so many who get really incenced over the "editing" by de Camp; Howard was edited by lesser writers and editors when he initially submitted the stories to Weird Tales and ther magazines. All writers get edited. De Camp says he edited some of the stories just to get them published. As for Howard's fragments and outlines being fleshed out by De Camp in order to complete them, I enjoyed the Lancer books greatly. I don't think it was a crime.

Some of the later patisches, the ones written by other writers that had a different tone and a dimmer Conan, I stopped reading those eventually.

Edited by Cimmerian, 19 April 2012 - 04:51 AM.

[RJMooreII]

I thought De Camp's stuff was readable, but he lacked the literary style of Howard as well as a strong idea of what Hyborian Earth was like. Nonetheless, it's better than much of the stuff that's been published under the 'Conan' name. I much prefer the unexpurgated, unedited earlier versions we have and I find them to be much more driving and intense. De Camp never struck me as terrible, though.

[amster]

Thanks for sharing the experience thedave. The fact that you were able to talk to DeCamp for so long is very insightful. I must admit my view of DeCamp has changed since I joined this site, as I have tempered my opinion with the understanding that DeCamp really advanced Conan and Howard to the masses and I am personally grateful for that dedication

Amen! We owe the man a lot.

Let me add, to so many who get really incenced over the "editing" by de Camp; Howard was edited by lesser writers and editors when he initially submitted the stories to Weird Tales and ther magazines. All writers get edited. De Camp says he edited some of the stories just to get them published.

DeCamp was lying. The only reason deCamp edited the unpublished Conan stories was so that he could copyright them to claim ownership of them. The original Howard texts are readily available now in both the Del Reys and the Gollanz editions. If anyone feels like being crucified on this forum, then they're more than welcome to make the claim that the deCamp edited versions of The God in the Bowl, The Frost Giant's Daughter, The Vale of Lost Women, and especially The Black Stanger/Treasure of Tranicos that appeared in the Lancers are superior to the original text versions in the Del Reys. It would be helpful, though, if the person making the claim can demostrate exactly how the texts are superior with deCamp's editorial "improvements".

As for Howard's fragments and outlines being fleshed out by De Camp in order to complete them, I enjoyed the Lancer books greatly. I don't think it was a crime.

Legally it may not have been, but generally, when one takes something that belongs to someone else and claims ownership of it and credit for it, it's considered stealing.

I have a full set of Ace/Lancers, which I keep for reference and their collectible value, and I would be lying if I said I didn't like them when they came out (other than the aborted, incomplete Berkeley editions, readers didn't get any other choice), but I'm glad that they will never ever be published again.

Edited by amster, 19 April 2012 - 11:18 PM.

[Tex]

...I'm glad that they will never ever be published again.

Amen!

Tex
(wishing he'd had PROPER Conan to read 30 years ago this year)

[amster]

> I haven't been especially shown how stories were RUINED by LSDC. But I sincerely doubt he helped much either.

I take it you haven't read my "De Camp vs. Howard: Rewriting Conan", in The Fantastic Worlds of Robert E Howard. I showed therein how (a) de Camp's extensive changes to "The Frost-Giant's Daughter" were pointless and totally unnecessary, and more importantly, ( that de Camp's changes to "The Black Stranger" actually harmed the story. I went into some detail about how the changes harmed the story.

Way back years ago in REHupa I detailed a bunch of de Campian changes to various stories, probably still have the notes around somewhere, but it would be a waste of time to bother with it now. Those that want REH with a minimum of changes -- and all those documented -- can pick up the Del Reys. Those that prefer LSdC's rewrites can probably pick up the Lancer/Ace pbs pretty cheap.

Rusty

Word.

I'm astonished that I've never contributed to this thread before.

[amster]

Required reading:

http://www.conan.com...?showtopic=5976

[Cimmerian]

I don't know that De Camp was lying. I don't feel crucified, either. But I do think that many authors are improved by editing, and all writers are edited. I've never seen a side by side comparison of the unedited Howard work alongside the Ace/Lancer versions. I won't say De Camp's edited versions are superior, but I do appreciate the completeness that these books give the Conan saga. I guess it's because I started out with these volumes in the early '70s. I'm not a "purist" and I cannot find it in me to get righteous over sword and scorcery, as much as I love Howard/Conan/Lord/De Camp and anyone else who contributed. I mean, we're not talking Shakespeare, here.

Edited by Cimmerian, 20 April 2012 - 05:29 AM.

[RJMooreII]

I don't know that De Camp was lying. I don't feel crucified, either. But I do think that many authors are improved by editing, and all writers are edited. I've never seen a side by side comparison of the unedited Howard work alongside the Ace/Lancer versions. I won't say De Camp's edited versions are superior, but I do appreciate the completeness that these books give the Conan saga. I guess it's because I started out with these volumes in the early '70s. I'm not a "purist" and I cannot find it in me to get righteous over sword and scorcery, as much as I love Howard/Conan/Lord/De Camp and anyone else who contributed. I mean, we're not talking Shakespeare, here.

I think there is a lot to the simple idea that De Camp was turning a series of disconnected novelettes into a coherent saga, because the publishers figured that would sell and De Camp thought the Conan stories were pretty good (even if he did not agree with Howard's philosophy or use of language at points). I mainly like Howard for his sort of anthropological nihilism the same way I enjoy Lovecraft's 'anti-mythology'. Making Conan into a more traditional hero-cycle, when he is really as much in tension with that archetype as he is with it (likewise as Kane, Elric relate to Conan).

Nonetheless, we tend to want to figure out detailed background information and chronology ourselves, despite knowing that's not even intended by the author. De Camp was paid to mythicize and harmonize the disconnected stories of a warrior-king into a mythology of innocent barabarism's triumph against ancient sorcery and decadent civilizations. He was pretty successful at that, and if you prefer the originals to the final product it probably reflects a preference for Howard's subtexts over superhero adventures. Or at least that's how it is for me.

[duaneshadow]

This is a long and wordy thread, and I can't be arsed to plod all the way through it, but some thoughts anyhoo:

I read the edited texts in the early '80s as a young teenager. The differences between the edited ones the pastiches and the pure Howard one stood out like a ***** at a sunday school coffee morning even to my youthful eye. Not going to comment on the quality of the writing, but the Howard ones were just so much of a better read. more excititng, dynamic. His Conan is entirely 'real', no - one ever captured that.

I've not read DVD, so I'm not qualified to comment. I'm a very experienced mental health nurse / clinician, and ( aware that I might get lambasted here) I know that there are certain experiences and developmental factors that can have an impact on adult functioning, and that there are clearly defined patterns of 'damage' ( for want of a better word) and behaviour that can be discerned in the adult population who have had similar experiences in childhood - the personality disorders for example are not mental illnesses in the sense of psychosis or depression etc, but are clrearly identifiable behaviour / coping strategies as a result of certain childhood experiences and parenting. So, while again, not having read the book, and not knowing anything about the nuances of his relationship with his parents and their relationship as observed by him, I am not immediately hostile to the idea of a psychologist looking at someone's early experiences and applying their professional models to them and coming to a qualified conclusion. For these conclusions to be robust, however, the information they are based upon would need to be pretty comprehensive and robust and I get the sense from what I've read that they ain't. One thing that leaps out to me is the poem Cimmeria: it could be viewed as a brilliant analogy for depression and hopelessness. Just an observation.

[amster]

I don't know that De Camp was lying. I don't feel crucified, either.

Did you read The DeCamp Controversy. Exactly what DeCamp did is spelled out pretty clearly in black and white, and after having all the facts, LSdC has pretty much only two defenders in the REH community. I won't put you in the category because it's obvious that you don't have all the fact.

But I do think that many authors are improved by editing, and all writers are edited.

Farnsworth Wright's editorial hand was very light. Usually he would just send the manuscript back with suggestions to REH, and REH would change it himself and resubmit it. The Weird Tales versions are virtually identical to Howard's typewrittne texts.

I've never seen a side by side comparison of the unedited Howard work alongside the Ace/Lancer versions.

I have.

I won't say De Camp's edited versions are superior, but I do appreciate the completeness that these books give the Conan saga. I guess it's because I started out with these volumes in the early '70s. I'm not a "purist" and I cannot find it in me to get righteous over sword and scorcery, as much as I love Howard/Conan/Lord/De Camp and anyone else who contributed. I mean, we're not talking Shakespeare, here.

What does Shakespeare have to do with it? Why does an author have to be Shakeseare for his work to be considered important an worthy of respect? I despise these kinds of comments, because it's exactly that kind of mentality that prompted LSdC to tamper with Howard in the first place.

[RJMooreII]

@Amster: I don't really see a problem with De Camp, or anyone, rewriting Howard (or anyone). I do have some issue with what I've heard was blocking publication of the originals and such, but there's nothing particularly wrong with rewriting someone else's stories, even if it is a hack-job. I mean, it's not like he was denying either that RE Howard wrote it or that he re-wrote it.

If someone wants to rewrite Ian Fleming novels you might have some puzzled James Bond fans but I doubt anyone would be incensed. It's harmonizing-thru-fan-fiction.

Edited by RJMooreII, 20 April 2012 - 01:32 PM.

[johnnypt]

@Amster: I don't really see a problem with De Camp, or anyone, rewriting Howard (or anyone). I do have some issue with what I've heard was blocking publication of the originals and such, but there's nothing particularly wrong with rewriting someone else's stories, even if it is a hack-job. I mean, it's not like he was denying either that RE Howard wrote it or that he re-wrote it.

If someone wants to rewrite Ian Fleming novels you might have some puzzled James Bond fans but I doubt anyone would be incensed. It's harmonizing-thru-fan-fiction.

Whoa, there's a BIG problem with that, especially the way it was done. The stories in Tales of Conan were questionable, but maybe you could rationalize by saying "Well, Howard rewrote a Kull story into Conan so..." (but note, HOWARD did it). But what was done to The Black Stranger was beyond the pale. It totally changed the tenor of the entire piece. Completing unfinished work I don't have a problem with, though I prefer it when the finishing author points out where the original work ends and his begins.

And if someone were to go into Casino Royale and inserted SPECTRE in there, you sure as heck would get a load of people incensed.

[RJMooreII]

And if someone were to go into Casino Royale and inserted SPECTRE in there, you sure as heck would get a load of people incensed.

Why? You might think it's dumb, but oh well. Just do what I do with Superman comics: all the bad issues never happened.

If I want to re-write Hamlet into a cliche action adventure piece starring Vin Diesel it's really not objectionable, even if it is a horrible misrepresentation of the original play.

Edited by RJMooreII, 20 April 2012 - 04:17 PM.

[mario]

fortunately today ,we have a choice. If you see something of value in Decamp ( or any pasticher) Carter and Nybergs stories, hey theyre available. Howards original work is available as well. I personally after reading both versions ( like many I was exposed to the ace books first) prefer Howards because i prefer my conan to have a randomness to it, i think the philosophy of an adventurers life at when it occurs makes for far better atmosphere and is more effective for storytelling than a herculean hero cycle career thing that Decamp did, but thats just me.I dont want to know what happens inbetween, it loses its magic.I dont care how conan gets from point a at one point in his youth to point b as an grown man.
To me the second anyone tries to add or detract or convey or imply things about it , dilutes it. But whats done is done and I would never think less of anyone enjoying pastiche work, thats all we've had to go on the past 50 or 60 years anyway.Plus I think the stories should be left alone to speak for themselves too .When I was a teenager I remember liking them(decamp stories) alot too, but as time marched I see they were written for ( or seem to be) for teens. I dont care much for them now at all.
I am of the opinion because today that Howards work is so readily available for the reader to explore and come to their own conclusions, there is far less a need to villainize Decamp anymore , to be fair. He is dead now and cannot defend himself either, and while I certainly don't care for the way he did business based on what I've read from the Decamp controversy essays, it's dishonest but its relatively over now.You dont have to listen to anyone who puts a slant on the writings or how they are anaylyzed or what they mean or what happened between conans fart in btbr to when he lost a sandal in red nails,be it Decamp or anyone else. you can read them and decide.I think its worth it.Howard is a solid writer first and foremost.
And for what its worth, aside from his pirating of conan, Decamp was a war vet , and a well travelled highly intelligent man whose life is actually worth reading about.But ,the people who fought for and supported the furthering of Howards writings , for all intents and purposes have won.People are interested in Howard now, not Decamp for better or worse. The info and Howards original writings, not just conan either, are there for those who are interested . Those who are can have the freedom to determine for themselves the degree of harm Decamp did can now do so ( and I do understand it wasnt always this way but it is now) online with their del reys on the bookshelf right next to them.
Another thing that has confused me is this: the term Howard purist. And this is a question not a statement. It seems to have risen from mainly the watering down of the character conan and conan alone really, shouldnt it be then ' conan' purist? I ask this because in my perception ( and I could not be wrong this is why I ask)No other character or story from Reh that I know of has suffered any sort of bastardization or enfranchisement like conan has, I dont see what else besides conan warrants any 'purification'. Mind I strictly mean the reediting of stories to the point where they barely resemble the authors intent, I do not mean comic or film adaptation because I am of the opinion that they are their own entity by the nature of them being adapted, for another medium. Its impossible for any of it to be pure Howard cause well, Howard cant write it.

Edited by mario, 20 April 2012 - 10:43 PM.

[johnnypt]

And if someone were to go into Casino Royale and inserted SPECTRE in there, you sure as heck would get a load of people incensed.

If I want to re-write Hamlet into a cliche action adventure piece starring Vin Diesel it's really not objectionable, even if it is a horrible misrepresentation of the original play.

The correct analogy is you do the Vin Diesel Hamlet rewrite, but you can't get your hands on Shakespeare's original becasue they've replaced it with the Vin Diesel rewrite.

[amster]

@Amster: I don't really see a problem with De Camp, or anyone, rewriting Howard (or anyone). I do have some issue with what I've heard was blocking publication of the originals and such, but there's nothing particularly wrong with rewriting someone else's stories, even if it is a hack-job. I mean, it's not like he was denying either that RE Howard wrote it or that he re-wrote it.

If someone wants to rewrite Ian Fleming novels you might have some puzzled James Bond fans but I doubt anyone would be incensed. It's harmonizing-thru-fan-fiction.

That's an oversimplification of what actually occurred. After re-writing the unpublished Conan tales, LSdC disparaged Howard both as a writer as a human being, and told readers that the unpublished stories weren't good enough to stand on their own without his "improvements", and for decades he denied readers access to the untampred versions so that they could decide for themselves. Re-writing Fleiming, or re-writing Jane Austin with Zombies is completely different, because the pure text versions are readily available.

[RJMooreII]

@Amster: I don't really see a problem with De Camp, or anyone, rewriting Howard (or anyone). I do have some issue with what I've heard was blocking publication of the originals and such, but there's nothing particularly wrong with rewriting someone else's stories, even if it is a hack-job. I mean, it's not like he was denying either that RE Howard wrote it or that he re-wrote it.

If someone wants to rewrite Ian Fleming novels you might have some puzzled James Bond fans but I doubt anyone would be incensed. It's harmonizing-thru-fan-fiction.

That's an oversimplification of what actually occurred. After re-writing the unpublished Conan tales, LSdC disparaged Howard both as a writer as a human being, and told readers that the unpublished stories weren't good enough to stand on their own without his "improvements", and for decades he denied readers access to the untampred versions so that they could decide for themselves.

Well, L. Sprague De Camp may have been unfair to Howard as a writer but I don't feel called upon to be the judge of history. It's like wagging your thumb at Genghis Khan; what good will it do?

As for the IP control he exercised I think the whole system is a rotten shamble so my problem is more with the laws than with what he chose to do with it. I'm generally indifferent the L. Sprague De Camp as a writer and do not feel called upon to defend or attack the reputation of dead men. As a matter of historical biography or what have you it's not uninteresting, but the idea of a dead man having a moral character is rather nebulous to me. It's sort of like imagining Stalin still lives on as an evil shade and we have to curse him to keep him dead. Whatever LsDC did, the guy is dead and the damage is done.

[Konorg]

I have read a lot of the ace Conan stories and while I do prefer REH's Conan stories I also like De Camp and Lin's as well